CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

receiving-code-review

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

53

Quality

58%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Advisory

Suggest reviewing before use

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a strong behavioral skill with excellent actionability and workflow clarity — the decision trees, concrete examples, and explicit anti-patterns make it very easy to follow. The main weakness is moderate redundancy across sections (performative agreement warnings appear in at least 4 places), and the document is somewhat long for a single file with no progressive disclosure to supporting materials. Overall it effectively teaches a nuanced behavioral pattern with clear, specific guidance.

Suggestions

Consolidate the overlapping 'Forbidden Responses', 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback', and 'Real Examples' sections to reduce redundancy around performative agreement — state the rule once clearly and reference it rather than repeating it.

Consider extracting the detailed examples and common mistakes table into a separate EXAMPLES.md file, keeping SKILL.md as a tighter overview with references.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The skill is mostly efficient and well-structured, but contains some redundancy — the 'Forbidden Responses' and 'Acknowledging Correct Feedback' sections overlap significantly, and the 'Real Examples' section repeats patterns already shown earlier. The repeated emphasis on 'no performative agreement' across multiple sections could be consolidated.

2 / 3

Actionability

The skill provides highly concrete, specific guidance with clear decision trees, exact examples of good/bad responses, specific commands (like the GitHub API endpoint for thread replies), and actionable checklists. The pseudocode-style workflows are appropriate here since this is a behavioral/process skill, not a code-generation skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: the main response pattern has a clear 6-step sequence, the implementation order prioritizes correctly, and there are explicit feedback loops (clarify first, test each fix, verify no regressions). The handling of unclear feedback includes a clear stop-and-ask checkpoint before proceeding.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well-organized with clear section headers and a logical flow from overview to specifics, but it's a fairly long monolithic document (~180 lines) with no references to external files. Some sections like the detailed examples or the common mistakes table could be split out, though for a standalone skill without bundle files this is acceptable.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

40%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description effectively communicates when to use the skill but fails to describe what the skill actually does in concrete terms. It reads more like a philosophical stance or behavioral guideline than a capability description. The absence of specific actions (e.g., 'verifies technical accuracy of review comments', 'analyzes suggested code changes for correctness') significantly weakens its utility for skill selection.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Evaluates code review suggestions for technical correctness, verifies proposed changes against codebase context, and identifies potentially harmful or incorrect recommendations.'

Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'PR review', 'pull request comments', 'review suggestions', 'code review comments', 'suggested changes'.

Reframe the description to lead with capabilities in third person voice rather than behavioral guidance — replace the anti-pattern language ('not performative agreement') with positive action statements.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description does not list any concrete actions or capabilities. It describes a mindset ('technical rigor and verification') and anti-patterns ('not performative agreement or blind implementation') but never states what the skill actually does — no verbs like 'analyzes', 'verifies', 'compares', etc.

1 / 3

Completeness

The 'when' is explicitly addressed ('Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions'), but the 'what' is essentially absent — it describes what the skill requires ('technical rigor and verification') and what to avoid, but never states what concrete actions the skill performs.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some relevant natural terms like 'code review feedback', 'implementing suggestions', and 'technically questionable', which a user or Claude might encounter. However, it misses common variations like 'PR review', 'pull request', 'review comments', 'suggested changes', or 'code suggestions'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The focus on code review feedback gives it a somewhat specific niche, but the lack of concrete actions means it could overlap with general code review skills, code analysis skills, or any skill related to evaluating suggestions. The philosophical framing ('not performative agreement') doesn't help distinguish it technically.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
obra/superpowers
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.